Should LLVM become the default D-lang platform?

[Manu]

On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote:

> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>
>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
>> about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
>> move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler
>> framework.
>>
>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD
>> will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this.
>> Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has
>> already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the
>> language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and
>> future processor targets.
>>
>
> You currently can't get the best of all worlds in a single compiler.
>
> LLVM does not support exceptions on native Win32. (Same is true for Win64
> but I hope to change this.) LLVM does not support CodeView debug symbols.
> Not in the format embedded in object file and not as PDB.
> In short, you loose the complete native Windows tool chain.
>

Is there any progress on any of these things BTW?
At some point, sooner or later, we're REALLY going to need a performance
compiler on Windows...

With LDC, you can use other platforms. E.g. it runs on Linux/PPC64. But you
> can't ignore the backend because it has bugs and is incomplete.
>
> E.g. on Linux/ARM I have a linker error when I enable generation of debug
> symbols. LLVM for arm-apple-darwin does not support TLS. LLVM for PPC
> supports only 2 of the 4 TLS models. In addition, the assembler for
> PPC/PPC64 does not support all instructions I need for std.math.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140113/5ad3d663/attachment-0001.html>